Equality in Virginia took a big step forward tonight as a federal district judge declared Virginias ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, Herring wrote.

The judge issued a stay with her injunction pending appeal, meaning marriage licenses will not yet be issued to same-sex couples, but today is a great day for those who want to see all Virginians treated equally regardless of who they love.

That ruling can be read in full here: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf

A lawsuit challenging the commonwealths ban on same-sex marriage went before U.S. District Judge ­Arenda L. Wright Allen on February 4, in Norfolk.

The case of Bostic vs. Rainey argued that the Virginia Marriage Amendment, passed in 2006 by 57 percent of voters, is unconstitutional.

Tim Bostic and Tony London are the Norfolk couple who applied for a marriage license last year and were denied.

Since then they have gain the support of Virginias top brass behind them. State Attorney General Mark Herring and Governor Terry McAuliffe, both Democrats, have said they wont defend the states constitutional ban.

Herrings office issued a statement a couple of weeks ago saying they hope it will be a landmark ruling in Virginia on one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.

An excerpt from the judges conclusion reads:

 The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginias Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginias gay and lesbian citizens the fundamental freedom to choose to marry.

Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this countrys cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family.

Organizations that have worked towards marriage equality in the Commonwealth for years, like Equality Virginia, said that the ruling is historic.

The ruling finally puts Virginia on the path toward allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry the person they love here in the place they call home, James Parish, executive director for Equality Virginia said.

Not when every such judge is an Obama appointee. He could get this in all 50 states if he wanted.

I have to say this and it pains me to, but if this is forced upon the states by the courts, I will declare our rights dead and a new era of dictatorship in effect. I won’t remain in a dictatorship. I’ll have to carefully fold my flag and constitution, and make travel plans to Armenia.
...
Unless there is an indication that in an impending cataclysm, we can seize power at least in the red states and outlaw liberalism and arrest these judges pending public trials for sedition.

“countrys cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love”

Love is not mentioned in the Constitution once, like abortion. This is just made up.

I get so sick of these Judges, I WISH that a Federal judge would try this in a state where the Governor (and the Leg) actually have b*lls to stand up and tell the Judge NO (It our Constitution; and you CANNOT OVERRULE IT)!

I'm not at all confident in Americans of conscience meaningfully fighting back anymore. When Roe violently forced a "right" to murder babies on all 50 states and we did nothing, I knew we were dead in a way that we've never been before.

11
posted on 02/13/2014 8:26:21 PM PST
by fwdude
( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)

What is all this “equal treatment” nonsense? Any man is free to marry any woman that will have him, and vice versa. I fail to see the discrimination. To say people should be able to marry whomever they love changes the definition of marriage and is silly.

16
posted on 02/13/2014 8:32:48 PM PST
by bk1000
(A clear conscience is a sure sign of a poor memory)

Most of the material below is from the Kentucky thread. If the DOMA information in it is correct, then these judges have the wires crossed somewhere. Either that or they are deliberately wrongly legislating pro-gay rights from the bench.

First, as indicated in the Kentucky post below, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against gay "rights" as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated protections.

From the Kentucky thread:

Under Congress's constitutional Article IV, Section 1 authority which allows Congress to legislatively determine the extent to which one state has to respect the records of another state, the significant DOMA provision which still stands is Section 2 below.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Note that Section 3 above is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional. And I agree with the Supreme Court because the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate marriage. Only the states can regulate marriage. And only the states can amend the Constitution to define marriage. The problem is that the states, including low-information state lawmakers, have been asleep at the wheel concerning such issues.

Also, probably the main reason that patriots tremble in their boots when activist judges rule in favor of the pro-gay movement is the following imo. Low information-patriots evidently do not understand that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect gay marriage which this judge seems to be ignoring. So the states can actually make laws which distriminate against things like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.

At this point we may as well have the SCOTUS declare the constitution is unconstitutional.

Well, that's no more far fetched than the suggestion that two men can be husband and wife as well as two women, which is just what this court has ruled - the meaning of words is "unconstitutional". A court up in Maine just ruled it was unconstitutional to have gendered restrooms - men must be allowed to have access to go to the women's restroom if they so choose to do so, and women likewise must be allowed access to the men's restroom if they so choose. It's mindless stupidity.

Democrfips now run Virginia. Virginians are getting what they deserve, government promoting immorality, government removing constitutional rights, government serving globalist masters with a globalist agenda. Virginai was once a great state. Gradually, fascist progressives have pushed it down into the socialist sh!tter.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.

The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007Added a new section (15-A).

Notice the abuse of language. Marriage has always been between man and woman. How can homosexuals claim the law is not being applied equally? Have men & women been prevented from marrying?

What homosexuals want is to change the meaning of the word. They then claim that, under this modified meaning, they are being excluded.

If the meaning of words must be changed it is proof of a lie.

If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits. Why stop at marriage, why not include other words? If the meaning of words can be altered then there are no limits, lies become truth and truth becomes a lie.

Altering the meaning of words is how the left re-frames an issue to advance their agenda. Dont let them get away with it.

"Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family."

NCCU School of Law Alum Appointed to U.S. District Court

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

The U. S. Senate voted unanimously on Wednesday, May 11, 2011 to confirm Arenda L. Wright Allen 85 of Norfolk, Virginia to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia.

Nominated to the bench by President Barack Obama late last year, Wright Allens appointment makes her the first African American female judge to serve in that district. Prior to this appointment, Wright Allen served as a federal Public Defender in Norfolk and served as an Assistant United States Attorney.

Marriage was ruled an implied Constitutional right in Loving vs Virginia (striking down laws against interracial marriage). Today the judge is only following the logic of the two ridiculous Supreme Court rulings this summer which basically declared homosexuals to be a suspect class. This is all the doing of Justice Kennedy. Just think of what would have happened if Reagan did not back down and nominated another conservative after Bork was unjustly rejected. We would have a totally different nation today.

height of hypocrisy to say “unconstitutional” as a means of expediency. the constitution is silent on the issue at best while being clear about separation of powers, respecting the votes of the people, etc. 30 state constitutions and all duly voted on disenfranchised

The world is demanding you profess a lie of they choice is truth..2+2=5.. To me gay is as irrelevant some wanting to say 2+2=5..its no skin off my nose but it still an untruth.... But that the point to make you say a lie to believe a lie so self evidently untrue..its to break you to follow whatever truth of the moment they need...and that the danger

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.